Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is likely to be detained for questioning over his alleged connection to a rape case. The Director of Prosecution, Marianne Ny, has requested the District Court of Stockholm to detain Assange, claiming that they have not been able to meet with him to accomplish the interrogations. 'I request the district court of Stockholm to detain Mr Assange in his absence, suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion,' Ny said in a statement."

"I request the district court of Stockholm to detain Mr Assange in his absence, suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion," Ny said in a statement."

Assange allegedly replied, "[citation needed]"

citation is needed because the statement was NOT in English.

He is not accused of what we English-speakers consider 'molestation'. The proper translation (as opposed to a transliteration) would be "sexual harassment". And 'rape' under their law includes any unwanted contact of a sexual nature, so for example if you grope a chick's breasts at the bar, it's "rape".

taco, please either spend some time studying language, or at least stop parroting what you see on TV. Thanks.

The powers that be want Assange captured and made an example of. So if he's not done in by these charges, they'll find something else to go after him with, and keep trying until he's in prison, killed, or the world hates him. And that's not to say these charges aren't legit. It's just awfully suspicious, especially since the first time they went after him for this another prosecutor stepped in and had the matter dropped.

I think we can also safely give Assange the title of International Man of Mystery.

While the government (Be it swedish or american) could just make up charges against him, I don't see why they would need to for most people. Everyone has done *something* illegal, somewhere, sometime. Getting rid of an inconvenient person is as simple as investigating their life until you stumble across some useful dirt you can charge them for.

I'm sure if "they" wanted to, "they" could toss him in a maximum security prison under a false name with a false conviction for something unsavory, like raping toddlers, with a complete faked background (criminal record, trial transcripts, etc).

What's he gonna do? Call the media and say he's in prison under false charges? And they'd believe him or even begin to prove otherwise?

And I'm sure for the smallest of considerations the word could be put out

Rape is publicly damning. If he got busted for jaywalking or filesharing or poor parking or something obscure like wearing pink on a wednesday in some stupid little town. Then that would put people on his side.

In any case, noone is going to have a clue what the truth is till Assange turns himself in for questioning. Fleeing to another country tends to make one look more guilty rather than less, but answering questions with a lawyer present (which is the key here - don't talk to police or prosecutor without your lawyer present, guilty or innocent) won't do much to make you look more guilty unless, well, you're guilty....

Have you been paying any attention at all? The prosecutor repeatedly declined to interview Assange while he was in Sweden and approved his request to leave the country. I suggest you read some of the +5 comments, which include statements by Assange's Swedish and British attorneys.

I said it from the very beginning; courts here are _extremely_ political - when just plain old prestige isn't the deciding factor - and with the current right leaning crypto-facist government headed by one of the more glaring psychopaths leaders in a "democratic" state, it was a big mistake to come here. Something like this was bound to happen.

Clearly Julian Assange has committed a crime of raping the US intelligence and military, which is punishable by every means possible. He needs to be taken care of, he is clearly a sexual deviant, coercing the innocent intelligence and military structures into an uncomfortable position with him in a room in Stockholm.

Clearly Julian Assange has committed a crime of raping the US intelligence and military, which is punishable by every means possible. He needs to be taken care of, he is clearly a sexual deviant, coercing the innocent intelligence and military structures into an uncomfortable position with him in a room in Stockholm.

I believe the safe word was "9-11!". I think the military would have just needed to say that and I'm sure he would have stopped..."

Well, looks like the US intelligence and military actually LIKED the action, but now, that the details came out, they are too embarrassed to admit to the moments of joy they have received there.

Now they are desperately trying to replay the entire incident backwards, looking for the right positions and reenacting it for their own pleasure, but doing so through the TSA in the airports. You see, the entire TSA thing, with junk groping and the naked pictures, it's just a masqueraded way for the intelligence an

It seems like a pretty flaky way to ruin the guy, considering how much difficulty victims have in securing a conviction where there has been a rape (either because it's difficult to collect evidence or because a lot of the time it comes down to one person's word against another). If there were shady government-funded agencies at work here, couldn't they have come up with something that left no shadow of doubt as to guilt to ensure a conviction, an acquaintance stabbed and a bloody knife found in his car, or

I think this isn't about a conviction, but rather casting doubt at the person. Wikileaks is already being associated as 'that rapist club' by people who only casually follow the news. Some see this latest news and ask 'is that creep still out raping those lovely women?'. You analyzed right, but doubt isn't a problem here, it's what they need most to discredit him and his organization.

If there were shady government-funded agencies at work here, couldn't they have come up with something that left no shadow of doubt as to guilt to ensure a conviction, an acquaintance stabbed and a bloody knife found in his car, or indecent images planted on his computer or something?

No, because the very fact that you can imagine said shady agencies doing this means there's always a shadow of doubt one did. That's why the bar is "reasonable doubt", not "any doubt".

For fucks sake, they say they want to charge him, and then they let him go. Then they say they want to charge him, and yet again they say he can go. Now this.
I mean come on, either you want him or not. Either you stand in the face of the bullies who are asking you to do this, or you bend all the way, there is no I am half-way bent.

For fucks sake, they say they want to charge him, and then they let him go.

They never actually brought him in or even asked him to turn up last time. This is the first time he's actually been called in for questioning - but wait - they haven't actually called him in yet! We've got a huge beatup about something that isn't even a story yet. This ridiculous amount of trial by media makes it look very much like a bluff where they have nothing that will stick to the point where he can be deported but they just want to harass him out of the country.

as various media outlets have reported "the basis for the rape charge" purely seems to constitute a post-facto dispute over consensual, but unprotected sex days after the event. Both women have declared that they had consensual sexual relations with our client and that they continued to instigate friendly contact well after the alleged incidents. Only after the women became aware of each other's relationships with Mr. Assange did they make their allegations against him.

That's an 2 edged sword.
If people heard this:
This man who helped uncover dirty secrets, was blamed for raped immediately after he released the documents that uncovered the atrocities committed by this faction.
This person will be even more trusted. It's a PR game, and I would put my bet on him.
Because as long as governments(like the US) are certifying that these leaked documents are true, the second story will always prevail.

Wikileaks has discredited themselves quite well all on their own. It started out as a site for people in oppressed countries to leak out information that their rulers would rather keep under wraps. It evolved into a site that would accept leaks from anyone. It then turned into a site whose primary propose seems to be to embarrass the United States Government.

Mind you, my Government deserves to be embarassed at times but this war that Assange is waging is hardly compatible with the lofty ideas that got Wikileaks started. Some of Wikileaks own people have said as much.

Precisely because the people behind it don't want it to die. They want to keep it in the public mindset that "Assange is a rapist", not "Assange was the media figure who helped expose US military abuse, incompetence, and murder".

(If you're not from Sweden this might be hard to understand, but yes, it's seen as culturally ok to claim rape several days after the fact - even if it was consentual at the time)

Press release by counsel for Julian Assange

LONDON, 2pm Thursday November 18, 2010

Mark Stephens of law firm Finers Stephens Innocent said today, “On the morning of 21 August 2010, my client, Julian Assange, read in the Swedish tabloid newspaper Expressen that there was a warrant out for his arrest relating to allegations of “rape” involving two Swedish women.

However, even the substance of the allegations, as revealed to the press through unauthorized disclosures do not constitute what any advanced legal system considers to be rape; as various media outlets have reported “the basis for the rape charge” purely seems to constitute a post-facto dispute over consensual, but unprotected sex days after the event. Both women have declared that they had consensual sexual relations with our client and that they continued to instigate friendly contact well after the alleged incidents. Only after the women became aware of each other’s relationships with Mr. Assange did they make their allegations against him.

The warrant for his arrest was rightly withdrawn within 24 hours by Chief prosecutor Eva Finne, who found that there was no “reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Yet his name had already been deliberately and unlawfully disclosed to the press by Swedish authorities. The so called “rape” story was carried around the world and has caused Mr. Assange and his organization irreparable harm.

Eva Finne’s decision to drop the “rape" investigation was reversed after the intervention of a political figure, Claes Borgstrom, who is now acting for the women. The case was given to a specific prosecutor, Marianne Ny.

The only way the accused and his lawyers have been able to discover any substantive information regarding the investigation against him has been through the media. Over the last three months, despite numerous demands, neither Mr. Assange, nor his legal counsel has received a single word in writing from the Swedish authorities relating to the allegations; a clear contravention to Article 6 of the European Convention, which states that every accused must e informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him”. The actions by the Swedish authorities constitute a blatant and deliberate disregard for his rights under the Convention.

We are now concerned that prosecutor Marianne Ny intends to apply for an arrest warrant in an effort to have Mr. Assange forcibly taken to Sweden for preliminary questioning. Despite his right to silence, my client has repeatedly offered to be interviewed, first in Sweden before he left, and then subsequently in the UK (including at the Swedish Embassy), either in person or by telephone, videoconferencing or email and he has also offered to make a sworn statement on affidavit. All of these offers have been flatly refused by a prosecutor who is abusing her powers by insisting that he return to Sweden at his own expense to be subjected to another media circus that she will orchestrate. Pursuing a warrant in this circumstance is entirely unnecessary and disproportionate. This action is in contravention both of European Conventions and makes a mockery of arrangements between Sweden and the United Kingdom designed to deal with just such situations. This behavior is not a prosecution, but a persecution. Before leaving Sweden Mr. Assange asked to be interviewed by the prosecution on several occasions in relation to the allegations, staying over a month in Stockholm, at considerable expense and despite many engagements elsewhere, in order to clear his name. Eventually the prosecution told his Swedish lawyer Bjorn Hurtig that he was free to leave the country, without interview, which he

Enclosed You will find a copy of the documents that I have would like to send to the prosecutor. I have not been able to have the document translated in detail, but I will now tell You the most important things in it.

First of all I comment the ongoing investigation and tell the prosecutor that I have asked her several times that they should hear my client so that we can be aware of the accusations. They have said no to this initially (and by this I mean for several weeks). Furthermore I remind her that I several times have asked her to give me the evidence in the case. She has said no to this also. I then tell her that I have asked my questions informally and in writing and tell her about a formal request that I made 14 of September 2010. This formal request has not yet been formally answered, which I find to be a breach of Swedish law (23:18 Rättegångsbalken). I also tell her that Sweden has not followed art 6:3 of The European Convention of the 4 november 1950, because Julian has not been informed of the accusation in detail and in his own language. Neither has he been informed of the documents in the case in his own language. This is an incorrect behavior.

I then tell her that Julian is indeed willing to participate in a hearing. But I remind her that I asked her in writing (14 of September) if he was free to leave Sweden for doing buissines in other countries and that she called me and said that he was free to leave. This is important because it means that Julian has not left Sweden in trying to escape the Swedish justice. Then I reminds her that Julian and I several times have tried to give them dates when he could come to Sweden and participate in a hearing, for example I spoke to the second prosecutor Erika Leijnefors during week nr 40 and told her that Julian could participate in a hearing the 10 of October (a Sunday) or some day the following week. The prosecutor in charge (Marianne Ny) said no to this. Other times Marianne Ny has said no to our proposals due to that one of her policeofficers were sick or because the time did not suit her. This is also important because it shows that Julian has tried but Marianne Ny has said no. I go on remembering her that Julian has suggested that he could participate over a phone line and from an Australian Embassy. She has said not to this also. Then I tell her that Julian is willing to participate through a videoconference or to make a written statement over the accusation and the questions they may have. This is of utmost importance, since it shows his willingness to participate. I remind her of a ruling from our Highest Court; NJA 2007 s.337, in which the court did not put a man in custody although he was abroad and did not come to Sweden to participate in a hearing. It was not proportional to do such a thing, since he left Sweden rightfully (just like Julian) and thus did not try to escape the Swedish justice, he was willing to participate via phone or in writing and so forth.

In the second last section of the letter I tell the prosecutor that she should think of the damage that Sweden already has done to Julian by letting his name in public. I tell her that I have heard that there is a policeinvestigation going on about the first prosecutor who let Julians name out In public, which shows that it is a serious matter. If the prosecutor now goes forward with a request of Julian being put in custody it is my opinion that the damage could be enormous; whate

Retroactive rape? "I consented, but if I'd known then what I know now I wouldn't have, therefore knowing what I know now allows me to reverse my decision of the past, therefore I didn't consent, thus it was rape." Twisted, but... lawyers. Same in every country.

It sounds like the retroactive rape charge is in relation to the guy sleeping with two girls who know each other. They only went to the police after they found out about the other encounter. That would mean the charges are less about the AIDS and more about the cooties.

While I don't claim to be an expert in these matters, what I do know a thing or two about is the power of whisper campaigns. You can quickly dismantle someone's authority by just saying bad things about them and getting others to make jokes.

Ex post facto is an important concept here. When you gave consent, you gave consent, which makes the sex not rape, by definition. That you might have been stupid to do so doesn't mean that you can retroactively revoke your consent. And this is an important issue with this particular crime, because there have been rape cases that have turned out to be simply a case of morning-after regrets.

Which of course brings me to an important lesson: If you're going to sleep with someone, either wear a condom or demand they get tested for HIV.

The problem with Wikileaks is that only half of the participants are anonymous. For it to work over a long period of time the people helping to disseminate the information need to be anonymous, too. I'm not sure if that's technically possible, though.

I think the key question in the short term is going to be "what are court reporting restrictions like in Sweden". I have no idea whether Mr. Assange has committed the crimes he is accused of. If he has, then regardless of his notoriety, he should be punished appropriately. If he hasn't, then regardless of his notoriety, he should not be punished for them (and if there has been an attempt to pervert the course of justice, those responsible should be put on trial).

The court can decide to have the "doors closed". This means only the court itself and the people involved in the case see the evidence. Any witnesses called will hear/see nothing other than their own evidence. Further, the court decision can be stamped "Secret" in parts or in its entirety. If things are really sensitive, you will never find out there has even been a trial....

I believe that one of the most often used reasons to close the doors and/or label the court decision secret is to protect the victim

"Nobody is above the law" is the principle Wikileaks seems to be standing for. Assange should not be exempt from the laws either. By all means, if there is sufficient evidence to warrant some questions, question him.

I personally have no opinion as to whether these charges are true or not - there just isn't enough data to support any conclusion. It could be an attempt to discredit the organization, or it could be true. So, then, go get the data, and examine the evidence, and see if there's even enough to warrant a trial.

Thank you for your post. You are the only person here so far with an open mind around here. Let's wait to see how the evidence plays out before jumping to conclusions. Sad that everyone else already has made up their minds.

I think you both missed the part where the prosecutor has repeatedly refused to interview Assange or to inform his attorney in writing of the exact charges, and the multiple violations of Swedish law and legal precedent and of the European Convention on Human Rights by both the police and the prosecution. TL;DNR perhaps?

They can't inform him of his charges if he hasn't actually been charged for anything. I'm not a lawyer, and my legal knowledge is US, not Swedish, but if they're still investigating the matter, they can't charge you with anything. I'm also going to ask for an independent (read: not aligned with either side) source for "multiple violations of Swedish and international law. Just because I think, had there actually been a clear violation, Assange would be suing Sweden for everything it owns.

Well, you can start with the fact that the Swedish police informed the press of the charges against him, and identified him by name, before they had even spoken to him - which they still haven't. That may be business as usual in the US, but it's not the way we do things in the civilized world. They've violated due process six ways to Sunday.

Well that's the thing, they're not even questioning him - just read the letter from Mr. Assange's attorney a couple of posts up. What's been happening is that the Swedish prosecutors, in contravention of good taste and (apparently) Swedish law, have been announcing "We're going to arrest Assange for rape!", and then not doing anything about it, not telling him what the charges are, and not bringing him in for questioning. They even said he was free to leave the country!

That's not the behavior of someone who wants to prosecute a criminal in the court of justice; if they had a case, they would fucking bring it, and Assange would go to jail for rape. This is the behavior of someone who wants to hang an innocent person in the court of public opinion.

The Assange case makes a good study in how the violent right goes about dealing with threats; we first saw serious suggestions that he is some sort of 'sex pest' being inserted into the media earlier this year; for instance a BBC profile piece on him contained 'hints' of this, shadow actors started adding entries to his wikipedia article, all pro-establishment media now uses a standard 'looks greasy and sleezy' stock photo of him, etc..

Then later on; he failed to resist some of the loose women who suddenly

That's what this is. When he gets arrested, the news won't say "The swedish authorities have finally captured wikileaks founder Julian Assagne, using 'rape' and 'molestation' to get an arrest order".

They'll say: "Wikileaks founder Julian Assagne has been convicted for rape. " Then they'll make a story of how corrupted wikileaks is and how its founders are a bunch of criminals. Of course, I'm sure Fox News will add some spice to please the masses.

This has CIA character assassination written all over it with a huge marker. Nice to see that Swedish courts are either lapdogs or dupes (or both). This is exactly what I expected [slashdot.org] the CIA to do to.

this is the italian version of the organization that was founded in every nato country, and probably in every country aligned with usa back in cold war.

these secret organizations were set up in order to make sure that those countries 'stayed true to western ideals' -> basically u.s. interests. and, in all cases, even the secret service of the involved country did not officially know or was involved with these organizations, despite probably having members of these organizations among themselves without their knowledge.

operations involved assassinations or character assassinations of dangerous individuals, intellectuals, politicians (death, accidents, or scandals, other means), setting up terrorist acts, even fake terrorist organizations to take blame for various actions in those countries in order to estrange the public from what the organization would claim to be. (set up fake leftist terror groups and estrange people from left ideology, or religions etc), creation and funding of various insurgent/guerilla groups in order to either aid the friendly regime (in 3rd world countries these kind of insurgence was the excuse the dictators were using for oppressive measures), or, to harass nearby unfriendly regimes, arrange any means that would ensure the u.s. friendly parties got the upper hand in elections, in democratic countries. (scandals, bribery schemes, cheating, anything).... the list of activities is endless...

after cold war, some of the countries have ousted and prosecuted these organizations, or closed them down. some of the countries, did not. some of the countries, were not able to do that. some, are still trying.

it is highly possible that, a version of this organization existed or still exists in usa, with, or without the knowledge of its intelligence organizations.

and this 'rape case', seems WAY too similar with the cases in the accounts that the ex-agents describe in books describing gladio, or testimonies in court cases that were conducted over these.

in case you forgot, wikipedia has a habit of exposing any kind of information to public, including very, very disturbing dealings of united states government and corporations. things even u.s. citizens cannot access and uncover...

Today's NY Times gives the first account I have seen of the actual circumstances and allegations

The two women who accused him were volunteers who had offered to assist WikiLeaks and met him in his first days in Sweden.

According to accounts the women gave to the police and friends, Swedish officials have said, they had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. One woman said that Mr. Assange had ignored her appeals to stop after a condom broke. The other woman said that she and Mr. Assange had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use.

The existence of the allegations is a fact.
We have two competing hypotheses to account for that fact

Assange committed sexual assault

Assange was set up by someone who doesn't like WikiLeaks

Having read the allegations, I find it very difficult to discount the second hypothesis.

If your goal is to prosecute a guy for a crime, you bring charges and you prosecute. If your goal is to assassinate his character, you draw out the process as long as possible, using innuendo in the media, without actually involving the courts.

This reeks of the latter.

"We're thinking of getting an arrest warrant to detain Assange for questioning involving these charges that we keep bringing against him and then dropping, but we haven't actually done it yet. We're just putting it out there in the media that we're thinking of doing it. We'll tell you more when we maybe do it next week, or decide not to, so we can keep getting media attention."

I highly doubt that someone in the public eye as much as Assange (not to mention someone who is under a microscope already) would have something to do with rape.

So you get a free pass with the law because you're a celebrity?

Justice is blind. Try not to forget that.

Hell, I would argue that people in power are often egomaniacs who think they can get away with murder, rape, fraud, cheating, mistresses, etc. If you are a popular football player or billionaire or web sensation, you're probably doing whatever you want. I think the opposite logic is more applicable than yours. But, again, justice is blind so I don't think that should even be taken into account. If the accuser is a shill, the court and lawyers should be able to figure that out. If the accuser is not a shill, however, you would basically be protecting a rapist because he runs a site you like. Let justice run its course and just try to have faith in the Swedish Justice system.

As someone who is not popular, I'm not too keen on your line of reasoning regardless of how much I like or dislike Julian Assange.

No, but you get bonus doubt when you pissed off the Pentagon and are depicted as a "dangerous individual" by an organization that has used and still uses a vast network of agents and has billions of funds (trillions ?) and has an exclusive de fact right to do things that would be illegal for anyone else to do (like killing people it doesn't like, sorry, "people that threathen US interest")

Justice is blind, sure, but don't forget that blind justice is also just a theory that we are trying to implement on imperfect human societies and that some people are actively trying to gain from the glitches of its implementations.

If justice is blind, it will hear Donald Rumsfeld in an international court of law in the same time as Assange is judged in Sweden. In the meantime, I am more worried about the suspected war criminal being not brought in front of a tribunal than about a borderline rapist (none of the victims actually charged him but in Sweden, a rape accusation automatically launches a legal procedure) that happens to be a very needed journalist in the present world.

This is a set up and Julian needs more than a little bit of help to survive. Various American agencies seek to bury the man alive and apparently those agencies have some power inside of Sweden. To start with Julian has to have known that an intense spotlight was focused upon him by American military intelligence. Under that kind of scrutiny only a total fool would commit a serious crime. Next we come to charges that were already dismissed somehow springing back to life. And the frosting on

Look...I'm in Sweden and I don't trust the Swedish Justice system on this matter. It may sound like what a conspiracy-theory nut would say, but the justice system around here breaks when the US is involved. Moreover, rape is absurdly loose in this country. You can have consensual sex with a girl, but she can still change her mind the next day and claim you "got her drunk" or "talked her into it". Personal responsibility pretty much goes flying out the door in such cases (precedents abound). Moreover, the fa

Moreover, rape is absurdly loose in this country. You can have consensual sex with a girl, but she can still change her mind the next day and claim you "got her drunk" or "talked her into it". Personal responsibility pretty much goes flying out the door in such cases (precedents abound).

[citation needed]

But he allegedly had an "attitude problem" with women. That's not rape in my book. I don't care what the law says, it is simply immoral to prosecute a man for rape on such bullshit.

Look...I'm in Sweden and I don't trust the Swedish Justice system on this matter. It may sound like what a conspiracy-theory nut would say, but the justice system around here breaks when the US is involved. Moreover, rape is absurdly loose in this country. You can have consensual sex with a girl, but she can still change her mind the next day and claim you "got her drunk" or "talked her into it". Personal responsibility pretty much goes flying out the door in such cases (precedents abound).

To look at that another way, that's not "consensual sex," it's rape. And you're arguing for personal responsibility to go flying out the door, in that you're saying people shouldn't worry about making sure the other person is sober enough to consent or isn't intimidated or coerced.

That's not rape in my book. I don't care what the law says, it is simply immoral to prosecute a man for rape on such bullshit.

See? You believe that laws should be disregarded. No sense of personal responsibility.

Lifetime judges may be blind but DA's are often elected political creatures.

"Lifetime judges" are human, and are thus just as prone to arrogance, corruption, deceit, and bias as any elected DA or judge. I simply do not understand the reliance by some on the theory of impartiality of judges with life tenures. The idea that life tenure makes them impartial doesn't even work in theory when you think about it. All it does is make them unaccountable. The fact is that there ARE no perfect judges, because there are no perfect people. This is why lifetime tenure for SCOTUS justices was one

When you're blind, you're easy to push around. Which I suspect is what's happening here.

Not that I'm saying that Assange isn't an egotistical narcissist, just that he also happens to have pissed off some powerful people, that I fully expect to be willing to push justice around like that, just to get even with him.

Given Assange's choice of professions, I find it highly likely that government would start making up crap about him just to detain him. I don't like crying conspiracy, but given how much he's ticked officials off in the past...

If the government wanted him out of the way that badly, you know what they would do? Have a deranged wife or brother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan walk up to Assange and stab him with a carving knife. Thats how it would happen - complete deniability and a link to his own actions in to boot. No need to make up seedy sex crime claims or whatever.

Sexual crimes seems to be a big thing in Sweden recently, since they're at the core of some popular Stieg Larsson books / movies that have grown in the public eye there and internationally over the past few years:

From what I hear, "rape" in Sweden isn't necessarily what we'd think of as rape. Even in the US, rape isn't always "rape rape". Get a guy and a girl drunk, let them have sex, and if the girl regrets it in the morning it's "rape". I would assume it's some such bullshit until proven otherwise.

To back this up a bit, check out this abstract [springerlink.com] claiming that the rape rate in Sweden is 3x the rest of Europe. At least 2/3s of those people are considered rapists in Sweden, when they would not be in any other country. It sounds like Sweden is going through some sort of moral panic [wikipedia.org] concerning rape. So I'm disinclined to believe any rape claims coming out of Sweden.

I was going write something similar, so I'll just add some comments here instead.

I'm a bit peeved with all the comments alleging that a "girl can have consentual sex and change her mind the next day and it is accepted as rape in Sweden". This is not what the courts have decided, where in fact they do seem a lot more willing to acquit than convicted in hairy cases. Which might not necessarily be the worst of things.

I'll say though that the "Was she drunk, has she had many boyfriends, is she a slut?" is not r

You mean like Phil Spector?On the other hand this case has been considered of such low importance that they are still trying to decide whether it is worth questioning the suspect for the first time. That should put this case nicely in perspective because rape is normally taken very seriously.

"I could be wrong, but still..."Still what?Really if he is rapist he is a rapist.And this is in Sweden. I don't believe that the US government is out to get Assange because it is so not worth the risk. And what? Do you think President Obama is after him or are you going to blame Bush? Or maybe some shadow government that is even more powerful then the President?Or maybe it is the Masons.Or the Illuminati.I think it is is the Shriners. Never trust a man in a Fez on a small motorcycle!